Thursday, November 22, 2012

Mr Speaker 'guides' Labour MPs on Church of England equality

MPs are queuing up in a concerted effort to impose equality upon the Church of England. Leading their ranks are Labour's Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant, who both doubtless have a further equality agenda in mind, just a little beyond the current vexatious one relating to episcopal gender.

This development is concerning, not least because (unlike some other Christian denominations) the Church of England has its own democratic structures for debating change and enacting legislation, and it's not even as if all of those who voted against the recent proposal are opposed in principle to women bishops: quite a few were manifestly unhappy with the wording of the legislation put before them, which both sustained anti-women discrimination and merely exhorted 'respect' for the traditionalists. It was a bit of a fudge, not to say a dog's breakfast.

But, in the myopic world of Westminster, it was simply and straightforwardly a vote against women bishops, and this is offensive for it breaches equality law; in particular, it reserves 26 places in the House of Lords exclusively for men, and we can't be having that, can we? And so the Prime Minister said he would 'look closely' at what Parliament might do, and then ranted that the Synod should 'get on with it' and 'get with the programme'.

The programme, presumably, being the equality agenda.

Which is odd, because he is presently assuring religious institutions (including the Established Church) of certain exemptions from another bit of the equality agenda - presumably because he knows that the next government will simply seek to impose that bit of equality upon the Church of England as well.

Mr Speaker informed Labour MP Diana Johnson that it wasn't for Tony Baldry to explain the implication of 'continuing discrimination of having only men eligible to sit in the House of Lords as bishops'. He exhorted her to approach Equalities Minister Maria Miller, who would then make a statement to the House of Commons.

Which is odd, because she, too, is presently assuring religious institutions (including the Established Church) of certain exemptions from another bit of the equality agenda - presumably because she, too, knows that the next government will simply seek to impose that bit of equality upon the Church of England as well

There is an undoubted 'tension' between equality legislation and religious liberty in the hierarchy of rights, which His Grace has spent six years expounding. He knew it would come to this juncture (and, indeed, it will go further). The bizarre thing is that politicians are seeking to impose a ecclesio-theological belief (with a majority of 1) upon an institution which sets a much higher democratic bar (66%) because such changes are not as straightforward as amending the Dangerous Dogs Act: we are dealing with centuries of church history, theological tradition, and the Word of God. 66% is actually the sort of threshold that ought to apply in Parliament for all constitutional reforms, which might then act as something of a deterrent to those politicians who treat Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights as if they were no more than ordinary statutes.

It ought not to be for a simple illiberal majority to determine that religious affairs of others. Yet Ben Bradshaw is clearly intent on Parliament intervening to 'ensure that the overwhelming will of members of the Church of England, and of this country, is respected'.

Forget the need to find a solution that might be acceptable to everyone: this is now the raw politics of power. His Grace never thought he would say this, but disestablishment is a far more attractive option than this discredited, dysfunctional and deficient parliament imposing its secular will upon the religious conscience of the Church of England.

137 Comments:

I agree with his grace on the issue of disestablishment. It has come to that unfortunately. And I think this is just a sign that Christians in general are being pushed aside in favour of the brave new secular world. We have to get used to the fact that we'll be hiding in the Catacombs or being fed to lions. Perhaps not in the same physical and violent way as in other parts of the world. But it will come.

I have to say it has been quite depressing the past 48 hours. The Anglican Church has gone out of its way to attack traditionalists as 'fundamentalists' and that the issue was "top-shelf zealots' internal debate ".

Funnily enough, I call it treating the words HOLY BIBLE with respect and tradition with reverence. Yet it has come about that traditionalists are 'sexists'. This is nonsense.

Frank Field said that they only passed the equality exemption because they expected the Church to have allowed women bishops by now (?).

That viewpoint, which seems to be reflective of both Conservative and Labour MPs, does not bode well for the Roman Church or other faiths such as Islam and Orthodox Judaism.

So even if the Church did disestablish there is probably no getting away from the real agenda now, but at least there would be more of a claim of interfering in a non-state religion is not the state's business.

But the real agenda is laid out for all to see now.

The Cat is out of the bag- women Bishops, gay marriage in Churches, mosques and Synagogues, all of which to be controlled by the state.

If you oppose that then you are a bigoted, sexist, homophobic and be sent to reading gaol and become a society pariah.

The Church of England is an easy target as Women and the Church (WATCH) have proved - they lost the vote only because of their intransigence towards those who uphold the traditional Christian faith of the apostolic church). We would be better served if Parliament directed their energy into tackling Sharia misogyny rather than promoting secular Christianity which has already failed the church in the US.

Both Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant have a semi-secularising attitude to the Church. They are also both highly intolerant of those whose opinions they despise. Given half a chance they will have the police outside traditionalist churches dragging priests to the courts and put them in prison. It's been done before as with Fr Enraght and others.

The witch-finder generals are about to make us "get with the programme". Definitely a pig in a poke. Or is it a prod? We have been warned!

Excellent comment Your Grace. Once again we see how the political class are heading in a direction that is comprehensively rejected by the electorate.

The Bishops and the Clergy of the CofE already understand the programme, but the Laity clearly do not. As an aside, the pic of a blubbing priestess in Your Grace's earlier post had this communicant wondering about the possibility of Archbishop Chardonnay, but one digresses.

The issue has therefore become one of the franchise of the Laity. This communicant doubts that even Dave the Brief will disestablish the CofE, but what can be done by Act of Parliament is to disenfranchise the Laity. Power in the CofE immediately becomes concentrated in the Bishops and Clergy. Thus the CofE will become a church along the lines of the former Soviet Union Orthodox church or the current Chinese Catholic church (that does not submit to Rome).

The result will be an national established church that is completely subordinate to the government of the day. In view of the Secular Ascendancy, the utterings of the Primate will be fascinating indeed. Just a case of sprinkling holy water on each new sociological outrage.

"His Grace never thought he would say this, but disestablishment is a far more attractive option than this discredited, dysfunctional and deficient parliament imposing its secular will upon the religious conscience of the Church of England."

Well, yes, but also disestablishment is a more attractive option than the CoE, through the bishops in the Lords, imposing its religious conscience on parliament, for all its faults.

Is there really a case at all for the established church of England (there is no established church of Wales or Scotland) having any sort of say over government?

As one who has always preferred establishment, I absolutely agree that disestablishment would be a far better option than Parliament "imposing its secular will upon the religious conscience of the Church of England." (Perhaps with the increasing hostility to Christianity in the political elite classes, disestablishment would be inevitable at some point anyway.) But if the CofE doesn't wish to disestablish and if Parliament does force the church to act contrary to Scripture (or even if the church itself passes a women bishops measure that gives insufficient protection to traditionalists), then presumably it will divide in three ways with conservative evangelicals going their own way, more Anglo-Catholics going over the Tiber, leaving only liberals of various flavours. Perhaps that's an outcome the liberals want so that, without conservatives and traditionalists, they can more easily impose the other aspects of their agenda HG alludes to.

I wonder if all those from Rowan Williams to Mr Cameron and Ben Bradshaw, who go on about the need for the CofE to keep in step with 'modern society' and so on, might misunderstand the purpose of establishment. Being "established" cannot doesn't mean the CofE there to represent society to God in effect telling Him how He must change His views to come into line with current some of our secular whims. This surely is not the role of the church. Rather it means it’s in a uniquely privileged position to be able to represent and speak God's unchanging truth (even things we don't like) to the nation. The CofE’s Canon A5 commits the CofE to be grounded in Scripture.

In fact people like Ben Bradshaw, who is not known for upholding Christian truth in certain current battle-ground issues, merely serve to strengthen to case for disestablishment.

The trouble is that even if the Church of England was dis-established, the likes of Ben Bradshaw could still push to get their secular/liberal/quasi-religious agenda or "programme" foisted on the churches.

We will have to fight in the courts or just accept prison or stay away. They mean business. The Synogogue of the Libertines has opened its doors!

Presumably, because upon realising this, the bigots might, you know, start asking for representation of their views.

To those who think that the result will be disestablishment: yes, it will if the Church makes moves to be bolshy. Look at the names on these proposals - all of them disestablishment men. Do you really think that in the event of a Church of England being conformed to the image of the Parliament that they will then push to jettison it?

If they were serious about disestablishing it, they would seize on the differences between the vote and their own agenda as a reason to do so - not a reason for reform by Parliament.

Democracy in danger in the UK. Seriously. It seems as though this is the Government line: 'You had a chance to vote for something, you voted for the wrong thing - so let us correct that for you.' If this push to force the issue goes through then what does that say of the democratic process in the UK?

Bottom line - if someone doesn't like the democratic process the way it is, then work to change it - don't use dictatorial brute force to impose your will. As for the C of E - it needs to be disestablished now. "If the Church of England wants to be a national church, then it has to reflect the values of the nation." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20443718)- Wrong. That's the government. A church should be reflective only of God and His Word. That's why it's called a church. If the C of E wants to continue to be known as a true Christian church is has to disestablish itself immediately before it becomes a wholly a servant of government instead of God.

As a lifelong Anglican and now trainee Reader, I have always held the " Established " position dearly. But now I too would reluctantly prefer disestablishment than have the church I love bullied by Cameron and his ignorant, secularists. Better to remain true to The Word of God, Catholic Traditions and gradual, cautious change than be made to jump through hoops at whatever breakneck speed the atheists and secularists demand. Better to walk away, head held high with our faith intact, than be cowed by anti-Christian zealots who just want to destroy our Judaeo- Christian heritage. Let's jump before we are pushed I say. This country no longer deserves The Lord's blessings.

I hear that there has been an emergency meeting between Dave and Rowan.The upshot: abolish the UK electoral system and replace it with the Indaba process. The last Party to die of boredom wins or, alternatively, everyone wins and goes on talking.

Speaking personally, I've not been a part of the establishment since I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord & Saviour. I.M.O the secular society & the Kingdom of God have nothing in common, so it's really no big deal.This collision of interests was bound to come. Westminster & the mandarins in Brussels are Blind guides whose rejection of the Gospel & attempts to force us to submit to their laws & rules HAD to happen, it was always just a question of when, not 'if'.

Throughout the World, Christians are being persecuted. Christ told us to pick up our cross & follow Him, He said "If the World persecutes me, it Will persecute you". No feather beds and recliners there then. But He also said "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the World". These mongrels will face judgement & God's Wrath, no mistake.

The Christian faith ALWAYS grows stronger when put to the test.It's time to choose friends, who will you follow, God or His opponents & detractors? Elijah put the same question to the Israelites on Mount Carmel & God answered by fire.Joshua gave the same challenge on the threshold of the promised land.

I & my family will serve the Lord, the rest of you must choose who you will serve.

It is girls seeking an education, or wanting to be able to talk to and look at people of the opposite sex who are really getting persecuted. In areas of the world where religion rules.

I suppose that a few Christians are indeed getting persecuted in some places in the world where theocracy holds sway - that is to say are not secular - but then atheists and freethinkers are getting persecuted there, too.

David B >>>I suppose that a few Christians are indeed getting persecuted in some places in the world where theocracy holds sway <<<

Google Andrew White vicar of Baghdad + church car bombing. Then try Boko Haram Nigeria. Does being blow to bits or machne gunned in church count as persecution?

Massive numbers of Christians have been ethinically cleansed from large areas of the Midle East, not least due to the 'Arb Spring' but worst of all after our secular government's wicked adventure in Iraq. Which of course was opposed by all the UK churches-Anglican, Catholic and Evangelical.

Interesting to reflect that if Britain was a theocracy we wouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003 and all those people wouldn't be dead. But that was a long time ago, we should move on.

Now that Changing Attitude has 'come out', so to speak, with gay bishops and women bishops being firmly on the same agenda, and the women themselves declaring that 'the gloves are now off' (what gloves, I ask?)perhaps the 'useful idiots', the likes of Fulcrumites, will begin to get it.

Well said, Your Grace. Let us hope David Cameron is reading your blog. How they are showing their ignorance, all these people who presume to tell God what to do.

perhaps the 'useful idiots', the likes of Fulcrumites, will begin to get it.

Yeah, no. That won't happen. The denizens of Fulcrum won't comprehend even when they are stood up in the dock. When the revolutionaries say "I like you, Fulcrum. That's why I am going to kill you last" the people at Fulcrum laugh and say "What a funny joke you have told."

Yes, I'm aware there are cases of dire persecution of Christians within the Muslim world - as there are of atheists and freethinkers, and any cases are too many.

Yet they remain comparatively few compared with the persecution of members of Muslim sects by members of other Muslim sects, and even they, I suspect, are comparatively few compared with the persecution of women on a daily basis, in education, in property rights, in freedom to dress as they please, and to converse with who they please etc.

For Preacher to compare the treatment of Christians in the comparatively secular West with persecution in any meaningful sense of the word is both is very poor taste, and out of touch with any semblance of reality.

For Preacher to compare the treatment of Christians in the comparatively secular West with persecution in any meaningful sense of the word is both is very poor taste, and out of touch with any semblance of reality.

I would not have used an aesthetic phrase like 'poor taste' but otherwise this statement is dead-on correct. There is no meaningful persecution of Christians in the West. Yet. And it likely won't be a secular gov't that institutes such persecution. It will be the pagan gov't that emerges from the collapse of Secularism - an event that draws ever more close with each passing day.

There are more are active members of the C of E than there are active members of either Labour or the LibDems.

A vote is a vote. Even if it was 51 to 49 the majority has spoken. It doesn't matter what is happening outside. Labour like all socialist organisations show contempt for the democratic process. I am waiting for them to tell the CofE to vote again until they get the right result!

Today is Thanksgiving in the US, btw. It finds its origin among Puritans who were driven out of the CoE, and fled to the new world for the sake of religious freedom. This seems an especially poignant counterpose as Parliament prepares to run out of the CoE yet another set of people.

HG ”Forget the need to find a solution that might be acceptable to everyone: this is now the raw politics of power. His Grace never thought he would say this, but disestablishment is a far more attractive option than this discredited, dysfunctional and deficient parliament imposing its secular will upon the religious conscience of the Church of England.”

This is negative defeatist talk Your Grace and will allow the secular state free-rein for the anything goes culture to flourish. Christianity needs to be linked with the state and the Monarchy as this is the ideal tension that keeps any one of them from veering out of control. At the moment the state are hell bent on their potty ueber liberal equality and diversity policy which has to be reined in.

The Church is not a manufacturing chain that needs to adapt, invent new and keep up to date with innovations as the market requirements change and develop.

The Church is there for our moral guidance, confession, worship and to receive forgiveness. Its objective is to teach from the Bible. They simply can't just change what it says in the Bible according to which way the wind blows or what current trend is in fashion.

David B. Did I say that I was being persecuted? Please take the time & have the courtesy to read slowly what I have written before you go off at half cock.If you still can't see where this is heading, you are blind friend.

A little clue to help you. The main question posed by Dr Cranmer today was: is it time for the CofE to cut away from the secularist policies of Parliament that threaten to turn it into a non entity of powerless religion. Old English proverb; "You can't run with the Hare & hunt with the hounds". Got it?.

I see the essence of the struggle as thus, I am able to support the idea of women bishops, on the basis that Christs message being taught is Greater than the sex of the orator

Reason being is, the present system which we live under has become barbaric, it protects evil for evils sake. In accordance with barbarianism we are allowed to seek justice by way of vengeance, if all peaceable negotiations fail

Now, since the barbarians in Government have brought an immeasurable amount of disgrace upon Her Majesty it is in our interest to turn the other cheek

As long as we keep to this most basic of Christs messages, those in enmity are living under our protection, indebted to God's Grace

From recent negotiations I have been having with Her Maj's broken system, I find no evidence the barbarians want peace, although certain VIP individuals may desire our protection, accepting the Grace being extended, which in turn shall benefit the Queen

It’s at times like these that one misses the good old Soviet Union. Remember the comforting stability of the Russian bear threat, and his missiles 4 minutes from us. Those Westminster swine would never have dared to undermine our now fragmented society in the sacred name of vicious equality. They would have been compared to Stalin’s lackeys imposed collectivisation of the peasants, and the millions of lives that cost. They would have been declared closet communists no less ! That loathsome Cameron would have been deposed of Julius Caesar style, ides of March or not.

You all realise this is what happens when you allow your country to be ruled by a foreign power. Our representatives are largely redundant and have the time to indulge in social engineering. The CoE is floundering in the water, and here are those bastards rolling their sleeves up to throw rocks at it.

Let no one be in doubt about Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant. They are both homosexual men.

One of the aims of the Gay Agenda is to remove ALL discrimination. Right down to gender. You see we are no longer men or women, but individuals. Thus, two ‘individuals’ get married. Two ‘individuals’ become parents. A bishop too is an ‘individual’. Now, the beauty here is that when you start talking of individuals and not men and women, the gender of the individuals or pairings becomes superfluous. Can you see where this is leading…

As for those two, are they actively pursuing the gay agenda dream ? Well, that’s a question you will have to ask yourselves, or even them. The Inspector couldn’t possibly answer that one for you, that’s for sure.

A more relevant question is whether or not you lot will go along with it. Remember this, a mother and father has a claim on their children. Far stronger than any bond associated with what Parent A and Parent B have with Child C. (…That’s what happens when we become de-gendered, we are de-humanized, just letters or numbers…). If you don’t go along with it, or indeed upset the government’s social engineering plans, then watch out. Same government might decide the interests of C, to wit, YOUR flesh and blood, lie away from A and B, to wit, you and the wife.

These are envious and arrogant types of females, who cannot abide the existence of those they see as rivals: usually decent and intelligent people who are busy optimising their natural talents. Without overtly resorting to violence, FFs have well-honed techniques for elimination of such rivals, and they are responsible for the feminisation of all we survey - including all genders. Their method is safer and more “fun” than developing inner beauty by learning to seek truth, or by developing what we know as character. Instead, FFs practice “spiritual murder.”

Among their techniques for demoralising rivals, Flaming Females:Present their own lies as truth;Treat the truth told by rivals as lies;Gang up against the rival, preferably one who is alone or unprotected;Pretend friendship, all the while gathering information they can use to subvert the rival;Tempt the rival to immoral action (spiritual and/or physical poison);Spy on rivals;Research the biography of rivals (if necessary), and misrepresent it;And/or deliberately misinterpret the thoughts/actions of the rival; Dominate, supervise, and teach but, when rivals react against such “guidance,” FFs play the victim;Include sexual harrassment among the techniques for domination.

While thus dealing directly with the rival, FFs also mediate with the larger world to disseminate their:Backbiting and Whispering Campaigns; Slander;Defamation of character;Report any form of rival reaction to management/family/friends–or media.

It's not for the state to force its dodgy agendas onto the Church. It cannot force them to have women bishops against what is written in then BIBLE. Also it is not for the Church to force the state to adopt anything too extreme either.

The Church is there to guide the state especially on matters of morality and the State has become off balance in its extreme following of its equality agenda. The Church with its NO to women bishops has made a firm stand for reality and reason. Female clergy are not valid and simply don't have the authority.

The goal of such focused campaigns is to provoke Crisis. Rivals will be rendered unmarriagiable, unemployable and, consequently will be left homeless and starving... unless, of course, suicide or some other form of madness (schizophrenia/crazy-paving) precludes that result. Even this can benefit FFs, who will then publish their version of the narrative.

As with everything deconstructionists do, the methodology lacks originality. Not for nothing was the pagan FAMA a female; not for nothing was the Greek deity of Weaving, Strategy, and Warfare ATHENE, another female. The new bit is the employment of the techniques to Feminise the Warrior Nations of the West. The Church of England must also be Feminised because it has traditionally reinforced the moral strength of our Warriors, their Ladies, and our thinkers.

For my part, Your Grace, I’m keeping an eye open for access to other reformed denominations who don’t force priestesses on congregations; in addition, there’s no harm in preparing certain places for use as Catacombs. Meanwhile, I join in support with all traditionalists at my local church.

Len, excellent comment! With some in Parliament apparently itching to force the Church into actions that are contrary to Scripture, disestablishment may now indeed be the only way forward due to the reasons you give.

Has anybody realised the CoE is extremely unlikely to disestablish. It’s ecclesiastical placemen and would be place women have gone over to worldly values and are thus content to remain hand in glove with our forever worldly minded politicians. So until secularism actively starts to persecute Christians in this country, not a chance !

And when they change their mind, it will be too late. ++Canterbury will be one of the persecutors. An anti-Christ - You’ll see !

Yes. The more it conforms to Parliament's image, the less likely it is to disestablish.

Imagine the scene: the first woman bishop enters the House of Lords. Are the people currently crying blue murder at that point going to turn around and tell her to hop it? The Bradshaws and Bryants of the world will simply point out the CofE's reluctance to accept SSM (a matter more likely to create a genuine and substantial schism). And on the day when an (openly) gay bishop enters the House, will they tell them to hop it?

We will increasingly see establishment held out as the carrot, with disestablishment held out at the stick.

AIB @ 20.00 says, 'Yes. The more it conforms to Parliament's image, the less likely it is to disestablish.'

Precisely.

In Dave's mind it may go further than that. By bending the CofE to his will by way of Statute, the established church becomes an asset for Dave in the prosecution of the secular and homosexual project, rather than a liability.

In short, the principled vote of the House of Laity has presented Dave with an opportunity that he had never previously envisaged.

The more it conforms to Parliament's image, the less likely it is to disestablish.

Well, OK. But what happens when it runs out of money? The Gov't certainly isn't going to make the CoE a line item in the budget. An established church with more clergy than laity would be something of an embarrassment. Parliament can conform the institution but it can't manufacture people to attend and give money.

Your Grace,The rights and wrongs of women Bishops are not for me to pontificate over although I do think there is a lot of fuss about spurious interpretations from two thousand years ago.What does concern me is that Parliament thinks it can tell the church what to believe. The next thing they will seek equality with is between God and the Devil. Or maybe there should be equal numbers from every party. The concept is monstrous. As for the school teacher sitting in the speaker’s chair, it is laughable that he should be allowed anywhere near religious legislation.

Belfast. We’ve had dodgy AoCs before. One remembers Beckett when appointed by Henry II in 1162. A mere deacon, of all things. The next day, anointed priest, day after bishop. The King must have laughed himself to sleep knowing he had one of his then best pals in the job. Of course, Thomas took his vows in all seriousness, to a tragic conclusion . The next ‘Kings’ placeman sitting as ++Canterbury won’t be doing that...

The apostle Peter put it this way; The Lord delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: (2 Peter 2:7-9)

It will be great when King Jesus comes to rule and to reign with a rod of iron, the gods of corrupt democracies will most certainly bow their knees then. Glory

May I suggest that we all watch this video from Curtis Bowers it puts it all very clearly.

http://vimeo.com/52009124

Real Believers need to wake up and, amoungst other things, start educating their own children, preferably at home. Then Bible Believing women will have to become wives and mothers again instead of pretend men, now that would be a shock wouldn't it ?

Naomi - 'pretend men' - well put. It has always baffled me why women want to take on men's roles. What is actually wrong with being a woman? I feel that some of these women who are prepared to trample on anyone who gets in their way are letting the side down.

Women play a huge and valued role in society and in the Church, which men cannot. Why can they not rejoice in that instead of trying to muscle in.

We are fast reaching the situation where the Church will be staffed by part-time or middle-aged women whose families have fled the nest. Full time male clergy will be a thing of the past. Of course this is cheaper for the Church. No wonder the bishops are so keen.

Johnzh said... "It will be great when King Jesus comes to rule and to reign with a rod of iron, the gods of corrupt democracies will most certainly bow their knees then. Glory" As if he were summoning Allah.

The Great Plague, the First World War and the Second World War did not summon his man on a donkey.

In the world of consciousness, there are women Bishops. They know who they are.

In the chasm of illusion there are many Female Leaders. The world knows who they are. They are not wanted in the battle to reclaim the church as a place where only the truth sets you free, and not if you squeeze your butt and think hard about it will you be saved.

With apologies to Stanley Kubrick.Prime Minister: Marine, what is that button on your body armor? Church of England: A peace symbol, sir. Prime Minister: Where'd you get it? Church of England: I don't remember, sir. Prime Minister: What is that you've got written on your helmet? Church of England: "Born to Kill", sir. Prime Minister: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke? Church of England: No, sir. Prime Minister: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant sh*t on you. Church of England: Yes, sir. Prime Minister: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man. Church of England: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir. Prime Minister: The what? Church of England: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir. Prime Minister: Whose side are you on, son? Church of England: Our side, sir. Prime Minister: Don't you love your country? Church of England: Yes, sir. Prime Minister: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win? Church of England: Yes, sir. Prime Minister: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Fundamentalists, because inside every Fundamentalist there is Secularist trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over. Church of England: Aye-aye, sir.

According to wiki 'Although it is the national church, the Kirk is not a "state church"; this and other regards makes it dissimilar to the Church of England (the established church in England). Under its constitution (recognised by acts of Parliament), the Kirk enjoys complete independence from the state in spiritual matters'

I wouldn't call that an established church, though perhaps some might?

fascinating video on how morality, family, Christianity, culture are under attack in the west today. Look at this video and consider what is happening in the UK today and esp. the travails of the CofE.

Your grace, the Reformers tell us that marks of a true church are the Word rightly preached and the sacraments properly administered. The role of any church is to be in step with God, and so lead the people in the ways of God. If the people are out of step with God then the church should be out of step with the people. To follow the people into error would lead the church to cease to be a meaningful Christian body at all, but a secular organisation to approve the particular moral errors of the day. People cannot complain that the church never speaks out on moral issues and then complain when they don't like Christian teaching.

Flossie and Naomi: well said throughout! I particularly agree that we must get our children out of the schools. To preserve skills and knowledge is part of the moral imperative, and it'll ensure that a new generation will be able to create work.

While we're at it, we might rescue some of the old books that academic libraries are relegating to the depths of their basements and beyond. That's valuable and wonderful stuff these (often) foreign library scientists are trashing. But they think no commentary's worth reading if it's over 5 years old, dontcha know; so the books are going fairly cheaply.

William and Harry (!!)... somebody else posted that video too, this is a third run; but do I ever agree that that's a good thing!I'm sending the clip everywhere possible -- in support of the same drum I've been beating for all these years. My main quibble is that I'd be surprised if Darwin had much time for Marx and Engels; I'll have to check though.

Oh, and I think they left out some key Modernist-Bloomsbury-style writers, who are still very much read. In-depth analysis reveals them as a traitorous British-hating bunch--all propagating the agenda we're fighting today. That especially includes the Woolf-woman: #1 hero -(: of the Flaming Females.

Mind you, I say Huxley had the big picture righter and sooner than anyone ... all the way down to the name of his World Controller for Western Europe: Mustapha Mond. So I've also been sending out this link to one of his conversations, on American TV, with Wallace (1958). If Your Grace permits, here that is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ePNGa0m3XA

Mr. S: Brilliant indeed; good to see you back. I number myself among Kubrick's admirers; and he got Burgess's A Clockwork Orange very right as well.

Re 22.11 @ 19:07 OiG: -:). OTOH, when women are good, they're excellent - especially as founts of education. In that context, some might even approve when: "The lady has a mind of her own, Sir."

Steve said "A vote is a vote. Even if it was 51 to 49 the majority has spoken."

The majority did indeed speak - in favour of the proposal to consecrate women as bishops. The majorities in support of the measure in all three houses were a lot more than 51 to 49 in favour.

Three quarters of the synod, voted for the proposal, and according to COMRES three quarters of ordinary members of the Church of England, believe that God is calling women to serve his church in that role.

Under the rules the proposal needed a two thirds majority in all three houses: it had ten-to-one support among the Bishops themselves, three-to-one support among the clergy, while in the house which represents ordinary church members there was a large majority in favour, but just short of what was required to pass the measure: if another six synod members had voted in favour the proposal would obtained the necessary two-thirds majority in all three houses.

The people who believe God wants women to be able to serve him as bishops are in the large majority in the church: the people who believe they are serving Him by blocking the measure are a minority who were just - and only just - large enough to trigger the safeguards built into the Church's constitution to ensure that support for a major change has to be overwhelming.

MPs and the press are not the only people who are upset and hurt by this decision: all the evidence suggests that the majority of Anglican church members also disagree with it.

I find the idea of politicians lecturing the Church on morality a little obscene to say the least. Many in the Church talk about "keeping up with modern social values". Isn't it the role of the Church to LEAD on these issues, not follow. The debate about women bishops should be about theology, not equal opportunities. The day the Church starts taking its moral guidance from Parliament is the day it is finished.

You are tied to the Catholic religion... Christ set you free but you have let yourself become into bondage to religion.A short test to see if my theory is true.Leave the Catholic religion and rely totally on Christ alone for your salvation.

Magee, its our seperation of church and state that England does not have; that would hinder such developement. At the same time we have a more religious society then any other country in the Western hempisphere. We will not be free without Christ; despite the humanism and civil religion that claims those advances. Such freedom was made by Protestants with God and vice-versa. Freedom did not come by Humanists. And freedom is only mocked by Papists. In any other context freedom is also mocked, yet not with the due spiritual lawlessness of the Papist... In that sense free means seperate from God. A fatalism --as every Calvinists fears-- leading one to license and tyranny. Take a lesson from scripture: just because you can do it; doesn't mean you should. So the postmodern false Protestant schemes with the others. There are those in England that advocate secularization as a humanism; when that is even a disguise for nihilism. So the equality, inclusion and tolerance is marketed as a religious ethic instead. Based on a social gospel of socialism. With all the pretended advances of 'liberal' Christianity and the spirit of the sixties. To even begin to think of a will of man, that must hold to God, and still claim his humanity, makes Satans portion seemingly quite confusing. Free in Christ, not free from Christ.

Len, as you know, the Inspector no longer engages with you directly as he considers you a spiritual retard. So this post is more for the benefit of John. He might not know you are contemptuous of ALL organised Christianity, not just the Catholics. However, you concentrate entirely on the RCs because you are what’s known as a bigot.

Now, consider this. until fairly recently, 90+% of the population couldn’t read or write. How were they to be given the word of God if they were to Leave the Catholic religion and rely totally on Christ alone for your salvation. ?

You post here as a demon would, to separate man from God. You sin is one of the worst possible, deeper than murder. And as we know, your ignorance of the corrosion you do won’t save you.

Get on your knees and pray for the Almighty’s forgiveness while you still can...

Mr Mcgranor, one thing you need to know about the Protestant religions. They need to protest against mother church, and they need to do it frequently. That goes for each and every one of the 20,000 sects. You see, old man, if they ever stopped, they’d have to ask themselves why they exist. So, off you go, protest at will...

Mother Church? Dear boy are you extolling the virtues of the Eastern Orthodox; or being nostalgic for the early house church? You know that the number is exaggerated? However, it doesn't matter the number of denominations. That seems like the complex of those seeing by the letter and not the spirit. Or those not relating to our faith--as a whole. Since you brought this up. I should clarify that: a Protestant is one that believes in the Triune -- God. And one that has a scripture without an apocrypha. Anti-Catholic and anti-Judaic pillars are a necessity; at least to a higher or lesser degree. With that you Catholics have done wonders in Europe purveying the fraud that a Protestant is just a rebellious spirit. The Anglo-Catholic (at least in a postmodern way) is some sort monstrosity pretending a part among us.

Inspector(24 November 2012 20:10|)I see I have made you my 'enemy' because I have told you the Truth.Jesus warns all true belivers that this will happen.As your' religion' is of 'this World'your words do not surprise or even anger me

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.(John 15:18)

Mr Mcgranor. A fellow ADHERES to Roman Catholicism as he finds it a useful medium to worship God. A God fearing man you see. He particularly enjoys it’s enduring stability. He does have his criticisms, as do many RCs, but we do stop short from writing them down and nailing them on the door.

Don’t be so melodramatic Len, of course the Inspector doesn’t hate you. In fact, if the truth be known, his feeling when he sees your posts is utter sadness. Expect you find that from people who know you in the street...

For the 15,000th time. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic (Orthodox) Churches preserved the Bible and hand copied it down for almost 1,500 years until Guttenberg invented the moveable type printing press in Strassberg in Alsace (now part of France)in the 1480's. Guess what the first book ever printed in Europe was? THE BIBLE! THE CATHOLIC BIBLE (in Latin)40 years before that Catholic priest Luther started his Reformation and unraveled the unity of Christendom forever.

No Catholic Church no Bible. It's that simple.

PS: It was Catholic scribes who invented the codex or book form of compiling written information on papyrus or parchment with pages stitched together rather than using a long scrolls which had been used for a few thousand years prior to their inventing the codex or book.

Magna Carta, also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England is the founding document of the rights of the individual in England was signed in 1215 AD when England was most definately a Roman Catholic country.

Magee, you don't understand because you are a Papist. They certainly --even in the context you wonder-- had the upper-hand with such innovations. As if they were destined to be so distinct. If Anglo-Catholic means anything then let it be that. Luther was only the epoch of The Reformation. It is spritually valid still. And will be, despite its unpopularity, and postmodern folly. Can you not see the spiritually starving hunger? Are you or the true Catholic Lite -- The Eastern Orthodox going to feed them? I think not. How can Satan give such nourishment. 'A house divided can not stand'.

It intriques me that you label yourself a 'Prostestant' (uppercase) and yet, in truth, if you are of an Arminian persuasion, as you claim, you have less in common with 'protestants' than with Catholics over the theological issue of salvation.

Maybe you should be directing more of your attention to your fellow protestants and persuading themof the error of their ways.

I mean: " ... a Protestant is one that believes in the Triune -- God. And one that has a scripture without an apocrypha", is hardly much of a basis for faith, is it?

And: "Anti-Catholic and anti-Judaic pillars are a necessity; at least to a higher or lesser degree.", is really rather vague!

DoDo, are you all Catholics? Who are not expected to understand. And even in you do; you are expected to undermine. I have heard the Calvinist line before. And i am assured that the Arminian response stands solely within Protestantism. We could make comparisons as well. Also remember there is three sides to every story...And there is Lutheranism as well. The issue is not the Church of England being a State function or not. But rather the social condition of England and Europe popularly. It is an extention of over-all women clergy. And by the activism of supposed bigots and so-called traditionalists: One can claim The Mother Church of all of The Anglican Communion back from pop-culture.

"And i am assured that the Arminian response stands solely within Protestantism"

Of course it does if wedded to amti-Catholicism. That's what binds you together as 'Protestants'. What seperates you is far graeter and comes after the stamping of feet and raising of defiant fists.

There are Protetants who do not believe Christ was God, died on the Cross and rose from dead. There are Protestants who believe in total depravity, irrestible grace and predestination. There are Protestants who believe homosexual relationships are consistent with the Bible.

What joins us together is faith in Christ and The Reformation. Doctrinal and theologically arguments are what makes a denomination. Your point seems only that Protestants are not credible. Views in favor of homosexuality are not Protestant. As for women clergy; All i can see in scripture is partnered husband and wife ministries, and what one might call a Deaconess position.

Dodo(25 November 2012 01:50) You list errors which you allege all Protestants follow .Which quite frankly is a ridiculous statement!.

Here is a List of some of the errors Catholics MUST follow if they are to remain Catholic. 1. The veneration of angels and dead saints2. The Mass3. The veneration of Mary and praying to her4. The doctine of Purgatory5. The transference of the solemnity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week6. Latin being the official language of prayer and worship7. The establishment of the position of Pope8. Worship or veneration of relics, images, statues, or idols9. Canonization of dead saints10. Celibacy of the clergy (though I understand this may have changed)11. The use of the rosary12. The sale of Indulgences13. Transubstantiation14. Confessing of sin to priests and the belief that priests can forgive sin15. Adoration of the wa16. The 7 Sacraments17. The declaration that tradition is of equal authority as the Bible18. Papal Infallibility29. Infant baptism

For any Catholics who are interested in learning the truth about their religion and how and why the Reformation was necessary(.Probably better to know now than when you are knocking on Heavens door!.)The enemy of mankind the Prince of the Power of the Air will(and has) done all in his power to conceal this information from you!.

Len, they are predestined to hell and marked by Satan. I am going to say one last thing since this is leading out of context to the topic. Although still within, due to what has been addressed as a factor in Protestantism's corruption. Once upon a time there were two traditional views regarding Catholic souls. One was that they are tainted, and need to come to the truth, life and the way of Christ; free from the chains that bind them. Many a Protestant in the past promoted a Catholic when converted to a Protestant denomination. Then there is --even for its time a more extreme view-- that you cannot take the Catholic out of Catholicism. With that comes the realization that the Catholic is intrisically evil. None of these are part of the postmodern understanding. Many think Cathoolicism is just another denomination. This isn't that they are no longer what they are. Rather that mankind has been decieved; because its easier, or better then 'hating', 'judging' or 'bigotry'. Those Emergents will die of faith, because they surely cannot keep the Protestant faith. The Protestant faith will not die. Because Christ will not die. The Anti-Christ is both an individual and body of people. Yet this gives them a standing. Either way they are the illegitimate church -- of Satan.

Clearly you two are quite unbalanced and should consider converting to Islam.

You will be at home there with special taxes, forced conversions, persecution etc etc. In fact Protestantism has, if you care to look, adopted most of the methods used by Islamists to force its beliefs upon unwilling peoples. Hey, you even stabbed fellow Christians in the back when they were fighting the Ottomans hell bent upon the conquest of Europe.

It really is sad that red faced, ranting, Proddies like you still exist.

The Truth will set you free .....conversely the lie will imprison you ...your choice. 'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'.(John 14:16)

I tell you the Truth in Love....no 'red faces'or indeed even' ranting' this end.

Nowhere man, you and your people have infiltrated; i see why you consider yourselves a success. But the lure and trap will not work for me. Regarding Islam; i'd expect that from the bed partner of the Jew.

"There are Protetants who do not believe Christ was God, died on the Cross and rose from dead. There are Protestants who believe in total depravity, irrestible grace and predestination. There are Protestants who believe homosexual relationships are consistent with the Bible."

Well really, Dodo, one could replace the word Protestant with "Tablet-reading Catholic" and still get the same outcome. As members of the orthodox wings of our respective churches, we might find reason to dispute such claims - but made they are, in both Protestantism and Catholicism.

To Everyone Else:

Nobody is getting to Heaven because they're a Catholic. Nobody is getting to Heaven because they're a Protestant. You're getting to Heaven because Christ died on a Cross for you.

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."

Or is God the God of Protestants only? Is he not the God of Catholics also? Yes, of Catholics also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

"Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

However, whatever the Tablet might say, and I've never heard them go as far as you suggest, one can only be a Catholic if one internally consents to the dogmas of the Church. These cover Christ's virgin birth, His death and His resurrection.

The 'social teachings' on contraception, divorce, homosexuality and Church Canon Law about the Priesthood, are also binding on Catholics. The protesters in the Catholic Church merely abuse a loophole about exercising one's conscience over the Magisterium.

Quite, but precisely the same comeback is made by Protestants - we don't struggle any more than a Catholic does in knowing something's up when someone who identifies as a Christian starts assailing its fundamental beliefs, deprived though we may be of the Magisterium.

Let's put it this way - the really aberrant positions don't pass the "bloke on the street test"; the majority of which would struggle to understand how one can deny the divinity of Christ and still lay claim to being Christian (of any persuasion). But nobody said that Sea of Faith made any sense.

You talk nonsense about how canon came down through the church and we would have no bible without the RCC. They (treasured letters among the congregations of believers) already existed prior to Carthage Council and the meeting was to throw out heretical books, supposedly once and for all, not the genuine held by the churches in Asia Minor!!

Please read a good copy to start you off, http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/134.pdf..You are welcome?!

Secondly, codices were available during St Paul's time, hence him requesting his (books/codices which have words on both sides, not scrolls which only have writing on smooth front not the rough back) be brought to him whilst incarcerated at Rome (2 Timothy 4:13)

Blofeld

PS

Parchments he requested are Septuagint OT, as this is what he and other Apostles used/quoted from to convince both Jew and Gentile alike of The Christ and based all his preaching on as the NT Gospels and epistles were not completed in total yet..Awaiting Book of Revelation to complete and close (circa 95AD)!! Also 1st century contemporaries stressed the convenience of buying or writing works in this format and the greater capacity in comparison presumably to the scroll. Finally as Paul was a Roman citizen and small businessman and would have been very familiar with the parchment notebook. It stands to reason that he would have written his letters in a form that was familiar to him and easily done on the road just as later Christians copied Scriptures on the same form that was also familiar to them. It stands to reason that in an effort to emulate such an important document as Paul’s Letters to 7 Churches even the most learned Christian who was used to using scrolls, had an incentive to adopt the codex and codices were useful and flexible in studying and referencing and the letters did not have to be read in the order that they were placed in the codex. see Gamble, H. (1995) Books and Readers in the early Church : a history of early Christian texts. New Haven

McCown, C. (1941) “Codex and Roll in the New Testament”

Paul tells us that he is brought to trial, and there are Eubulus, and Pudens, and Linus—will not some of them stand by his side when he is brought before the emperor? "At my first answer no man stood with me. Only Luke , the beloved physician was with him" Where is Peter and this "church" and believers he founded in Rome then. Peter could not be bothered to pay him a visit then, whilst his chair resided there??

Freedom of speech allows bigots to say stupid things so long as they do not advocate violence against individuals or groups. Even a bigot can reveal the truth sometimes and make self-righteous people feel uncomfortable.

As an extreme example of truth. Even paranoid schizophrenic people may sometimes have a valid reason to be paranoid.

Religiously observent Protestants are not those that seek to change or destroy Protestantism. Those that doubt the relevancy of Protestantism; cannot be expected to be counted as those that believe. As if we Protestants no longer existed. And that the non-believer was expected to uphold the faith. Who manages this website; and why is the Roman Catholic more of a participant here; then the Protestant faithful?

The thing is Inspector you are stuck with your errors and beyond 'Reformation'.'Mother Church' is an interesting description of the Catholic religious system.The 'Mother and Child image' is Pagan I suppose you knew that. Jesus grew up you know?.

Seems to me that Protestantism started to self destruct the day Luther was no longer the lone Protestant voice of the Reformation. Today there are at least 25,000 Protestant denominations, sects, and cults. Like a virus they contunue to divide and spread. Some are dying. New ones are being born. Very confusing.

Mr Magee, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Church of Rome was being schismatic when Rome asserted papal supremacy. To this day, Orthodox Christians insist that Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism, is the Church Christ founded—and that would make Roman Catholicism schismatic in the same sense Rome accuses Protestants of being schismatic. One typical Orthodox Web site says , “The Orthodox Church is the Christian Church. The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination . We are the family of Christian communities established by the Apostles and disciples Jesus sent out to proclaim the Good News to the world, and by their successors through the ages.”

A humble follower of Jesus Christ seeking to walk 'the narrow path'. .I 'did religion'which I found meaningless and empty. I then had an encounter with the risen Lord which totally transformed my life.I have no denomination.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)